David Cressey wrote:
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:474f8ba3$0$5284$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net...
>
>>JOG wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Nov 30, 12:53 am, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Nov 30, 7:34 am, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Nov 28, 10:37 pm, paul c <toledobythe..._at_ooyah.ac> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Bob Badour wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>rpost wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is the exact problem Chen identified. In the relational model
>>>>>>>>it is impossible to have entity-valued attributes, which, in
>
> practice,
>
>>>>>>>>we have a huge amount of.
>>>>
>>>>>>>Entities are figments of our imaginations.
>>>>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>>>That's much better than my reply, looks like the essential point to
>
> me.
>
>>>>>Entities are concepts that we impose on that which is there (mostly
>>>>>shapes made out of atoms, but sometimes abstractions too).
>>>>
>>>>>Entities are 'real' in that they are patterns that we think up and
>>>>>apply, and 'not real' in that if we were all dead, well there wouldn't
>>>>>be any 'entities' would there. Just atoms again.
>>>>
>>>>Is this merely an argument against mathematical realism or something
>>>>more specific?
>>>
>>>
>>>I haven't argued anything, I have just defined entities. All seems
>>>like common sense to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Because we conjure them up 'entities' aren't neatly defined, can
>>>>>overlap, change, and will differ from person to person. In fact its a
>>>>>testament to the amazing flexibilty of our noggins that that we
>>>>>manage to communicate at all.
>>>>
>>>>Do you consider all mathematics to be "conjured up" and therefore not
>>>>neatly defined as well?
>>>
>>>
>>>Non-sequitur. I have made no comments on mathematics nor on anything
>>>being ill-defined.
>>>
>>>What I am suggesting is that given the contextual nature of how we
>>>define any given entity, any model centered upon them is going to have
>>>a very inflexible, brittle view of the world.
>>>
>>>There are a load of atoms. Someone else looks at them and says hey its
>>>a dead bit of wood, its a 'stump' entity. Someone else considers a
>>>bigger picture and says its a snapshot of a 'tree' entity. Me, being
>>>lazy, say hey I could sit on that, its a 'seat' entity, etc., ad
>>>infinitum.
>>>
>>>Whos right? Noone. Everyone. Who cares. It just depends on the
>>>context, and with shared data, thats gonna vary. So lets encode the
>>>underlying bloody information, and not whatever brittle view of the
>>>world that first pops into our heads, ending up with a brittle,
>>>creaking database.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>And as such, anyone who tells you that you can build a permanent, all
>>>>>encompassing model out of such utterly woolly things is not to be
>>>>>trusted as far as you can throw them.
>>>>
>>>>>P.S I have also had similar experinces at Ikea :) I don't follow the
>>>>>arrows anymore. They lie.
>>>>
>>>>If there is a valid argument against "entities" I would hope it can be
>>>>stated more carefully than your or Bob's attempts.
>>>
>>>
>>>Again I haven't argued against entities. However, I am of course
>>>interested in what you deem invalid in my comments.
>>
>>He didn't like the figment argument? I thought it was careful and quite
>>clear. Perhaps, I should elaborate:
>>
>>Entities are subjective and products more of applied psychology than
>>applied mathematics.
>
> So the subject matter is subjective. Why is that a criticism?
I disagree.
Received on Fri Nov 30 2007 - 09:11:32 CST
